Three Democratic senators issued recommendations a year after launching an inquiry into companies — Deloitte, General Dynamics Information Technology, Gainwell Technologies, and Conduent — that are paid billions in taxpayer dollars to build or run eligibility systems for safety net health coverage. Those benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between having medical care or going without.

A handful of states directly operate their Medicaid eligibility systems, but most rely on contractors to build and run them. ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ found that Deloitte dominates this slice of government business. Deloitte-run systems have been plagued by errors that can result in eligible people losing their health coverage, previous ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ investigations have shown. Malfunctions can cost millions of taxpayer dollars and take years to fix.

“Administrative errors in this line of work are not like errors in other fields,” the senators . “There are life-and-death consequences for sick Americans who seek care only to find that their Medicaid coverage has been terminated.”

President Donald Trump’s signature tax and domestic policy law has mandated Medicaid changes that are forcing states to adapt their computer systems on a compressed timeline. Medicaid policies under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act add red tape and restrictions that make it harder for people to stay enrolled.

Those include the first federally mandated work requirements in Medicaid’s history. Next year, to keep benefits, millions of adult Medicaid enrollees in more than 40 states must prove they’re working or doing a similar activity for at least 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption.

Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Raphael Warnock of Georgia say the new restrictions — layered atop computer systems with histories of problems — will result in large numbers of people improperly losing health coverage.

State eligibility systems “have been built up, patched, and frankensteined for decades,” the senators said.

The senators sit on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, which oversees government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Many of their recommendations target the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Their ideas face long odds at the moment. Republicans control executive branch agencies, and any potential legislation would need to advance in a Republican-controlled Congress.

That balance of power could shift if Democrats win a majority of Senate seats in November’s midterm elections. The three lawmakers called on CMS to establish mandatory standards in state contracts with companies so states can receive federal funds.

These companies sign contracts with state governments, but the federal government approves them and pays the bulk of the cost. The federal government covers 90% of state costs to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

The lawmakers also said CMS should publicize the contracts and contract amendments. Currently, those documents can be obtained from state governments, but accessibility varies significantly.

The senators also said CMS should publicly disclose companies’ performance data and change orders. Change orders are used to adjust computer systems, and states set aside millions of dollars for them. But systems may require fixes beyond the agreed-upon work.

“The millions of Medicaid enrollees who will be required to prove their eligibility every six months, to document every hour of work on a glitchy portal, to find a doctor willing to certify that their cancer or their chronic condition is bad enough to qualify for an exemption — deserve contractors who are accountable for what happens when the system fails them,” they wrote.

In October 2025, the three Democratic senators, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sent letters to several companies that CMS identified as eligibility system contractors. At the time, they wrote that it is each company’s responsibility to build functioning eligibility systems, “rather than to prioritize their bottom line.”

As of June, were enrolled in Medicaid, according to CMS.

The lawmakers had asked the companies about their contracts, lobbying expenditures, and protocols for making changes in light of system errors, among other issues. The companies provided the lawmakers with some details but often did not answer their questions.

The companies said states are responsible for making the final call on whether a person receives benefits. State workers approve or deny eligibility, Deloitte said in its response letter, “not a private contractor or an automated system acting alone.”

The companies did not provide the senators with specific details about documents or processes they use to help states make eligibility determinations.

The companies also denied they have any financial incentives to remove people from Medicaid. Conduent said it gets paid less if enrollment drops.

The companies did not say whether states are on the hook for paying to fix the companies’ errors.

Deloitte, Gainwell, GDIT, and Conduent said it’s common for states to require that they meet certain performance metrics.

Gainwell told lawmakers, “We take seriously the issues raised.”

GDIT said it would answer additional questions from lawmakers and told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ that it “has a strong track record” of supporting Medicaid programs. In New York, GDIT said it has a “limited role” in determining eligibility because it relies on rules provided by the state. GDIT operates New York’s online Affordable Care Act marketplace, where New Yorkers can enroll in various health plans, including Medicaid.

Deloitte said in its response to the lawmakers: “We are proud of our work serving individuals and families across the U.S.”

CMS did not respond to a request for comment.

CMS takes steps to check whether Medicaid eligibility systems are working properly. As part of the process for certifying states’ systems, federal officials . They include whether states are correctly calculating people’s incomes, whether individuals are given timely eligibility decisions, and whether eligibility categories are accurate. However, it is rare for the federal government to withdraw federal money from states for falling short.

In August, CMS announced it intends to for Medicaid systems. The ultimate goal is to improve enrollees’ access to care and their experiences with these systems, CMS said. The agency also has said the standards will hold companies accountable to deliver systems that are “continuously improving” and have a “stronger capacity to implement critical policy changes.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

They share an enemy, though. They dislike social media’s effects on children’s mental health. Talarico, who did not respond to a request for comment, has for kids under 16, while denouncing “predatory algorithms that divide us on an hourly, daily basis.” As a legislator, he targeting explicit deepfakes — digital imitations of individuals that are often made or manipulated by artificial intelligence and used for harassment on social media.

Paxton has been suing Big Tech, alleging the companies on their apps or from being viewed by kids. “When elected to the U.S. Senate, he will continue his proven record of advancing policies that protect children online, strengthen parental rights, and hold Big Tech accountable when it breaks the law,” Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy said in a statement to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Youth mental health is in decline. Even as researchers explore what’s causing the problem, momentum is gathering among policymakers from both parties to crack down on social media companies. Several major companies are being sued, investigated, and, soon, potentially regulated. That they may be harming kids’ mental health is a key reason.

Companies are starting to feel the bite. In late August, the social media conglomerate Meta with a coalition of 48 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories and promised to change its policies and settings to protect children. Meta immediately took out advertisements in major newspapers, pressuring its competitors to adopt similar guardrails. Children’s health advocates want to go further, with federal legislation.

Indeed, at least 35 nominees for the U.S. Senate this year have sponsored bills to curb social media, initiated investigations, or publicly lambasted Big Tech companies that, in their telling, have exploited teens and kids.

“We’re protecting our children, not those profiting off their online presence,” Juliana Stratton, the Democratic lieutenant governor and Senate candidate in Illinois, , trumpeting state legislation.

Congress is edging closer to passing the Kids Online Safety Act, the vanguard social media regulation bill. The bill would require social media companies to implement various safeguards, such as limiting users’ ability to communicate with minors. to pass a version of the bill earned 91 yes votes in the Senate. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, that the bill needed to be passed “ASAP.”

Amid the momentum toward new federal regulations, Big Tech companies are lobbying for their preferred policy. Apple supports the bill, a spokesperson told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, while Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has spent $10 million on television advertising touting its teen accounts.

“Any youth safety legislation must put parents in the driver’s seat — blanket social media bans do not do that,” said Meta spokesperson Ed Patterson, who argued blanket bans push youths onto less safe platforms. “We support legislation that empowers parents — not the government — to approve the apps their teens can download from the App Store.”

Meta and other industry groups are scrambling to shape regulations for social media, and tech in general. Meta also gave some $10 million to a President Donald Trump-aligned campaign nonprofit, Securing American Greatness. Based on a ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ search of the Senate’s lobbying database, about 70 corporations, trade groups, nonprofits, and other groups have been lobbying senators about the bill.

According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration has the online safety bill to other parts of its AI agenda, which includes legislation that would make it harder to regulate the technology at the state level. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The public’s views of major tech companies are souring. In 2024, the 78% of Americans said tech companies had too much influence in politics, while 64% said social media had a mostly negative effect on the country.

A widespread movement encompassing much of the public health establishment, parents’ groups, attorneys general, and whistleblowers is calling for greater regulation, as parts of the tech industry fight back by spending big on lobbying and marketing.

“You have the whole industry and all their lobbying dollars,” said Allison Ivie, chief policy officer at the Eating Disorders Coalition. that social media, by showing kids images of unrealistically thin peers and by amplifying content encouraging extreme diets, helps fuel eating disorders. “It’s not a balanced fight by any means,” Ivie said of the lobbying muscle. “How do you compete against that on any given day?”

Growing Up Online, Breaking Down Offline

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a third of youth have persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness — about 10% more than a decade earlier. But many researchers question whether social media is causing the trouble. (Other metrics tracked by the agency show improvement.)

“The science is crude and messy,” said Sandro Galea, dean of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, who previously chaired a on the effects of social media on kids’ mental health. and have proposed a wide variety of causes for the crisis, like changes in the economy, decreasing social connections, access to firearms, and the pandemic.

Despite the uncertainty, much of the public health establishment is massing against social media. In early September, the Department of Health and Human Services advising parents and children to live life off-screen. It’s only the latest in a series of warnings from the U.S. surgeon general’s office — under both the Biden and Trump administrations — about these technologies.

“The evidence keeps building on the real and potential dangers of unregulated access for children,” Jerome Adams, Trump’s first surgeon general, told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. These include, he said, “serious risks like higher rates of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and developmental concerns. Kids spending too much time on these platforms face real challenges during key stages of growth.”

The policy backlash against social media has extended worldwide. The United Kingdom and Australia recently banned social media for kids under 16. The European Union has with a potential fine, up to 6% of revenue, for pushing “addictive designs” in a breach of the confederation’s regulations.

Besides the $17 billion settlement with Meta, other lawsuits in the United States have targeted Snapchat, owned by Snap, and TikTok, a short-video app owned by a consortium of American and Chinese companies. A won a $27 million settlement from social media companies; , including in Los Angeles, have , citing alleged addictive effects on youth, among other harms.

Coalitions of state attorneys general, including Paxton, have sued Big Tech companies, in some cases winning settlements related to allegations of mental health harm and addiction. In early August, to pay nearly $950 million after a New Mexico state court found it to be a “significant contributing factor to the current mental health crisis.” This preceded the multibillion-dollar settlement.

And a broad base of companies are feeling effects from the government and civil suits. The online gaming company Roblox in legal settlements, including expenses targeting “youth-related consumer protection and digital safety matters,” in the first half of 2026. YouTube, the video hosting website, multiple youth-related cases this year.

Taking Big Tech to Task

Yet the push in Congress has garnered much of the attention. Congressional committees on occasion have summoned tech company executives — sometimes with a friendly ear, but more often to berate them.

Accompanying the push for legislation are ongoing investigations, many of which collect testimony from whistleblowers. In 2025, Sarah Wynn-Williams — a former United Nations diplomat who later joined Meta — testified before the Senate about the company’s record.

Asked about allegations the company covered up or denied its knowledge of harms, : “Facebook was targeting 13- to 17-year-olds. It could identify when they were feeling worthless or helpless or like a failure, and they would take that information and share it with advertisers.”

For example, Wynn-Williams told lawmakers, “if a 13-year-old girl would delete a selfie, that’s a really good time to try and sell her a beauty product.”

Meta has been dogged by claims it has attempted to hide relevant internal research, including from the government. In a series of rulings in 2025 and 2026, a judge in Washington, D.C., found the company’s lawyers directed employees to “remove portions of research showing Meta’s knowledge of teen users’ developmental vulnerability because the research could be used by government enforcers investigating Meta.” But it has approved three dozen studies on social issues related to young people, and that they have “made real changes to protect teens online,” like creating teen accounts, whose settings parents can control.

Complicating any regulatory push, though, are protections for speech and privacy. For the legislation to work, said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, “the platforms are going to want to know who is a kid and who isn’t.” Simply asking users will not be enough, she said. “I know when I was a kid, I always said I was older than I was to try to create accounts.”

But the momentum for constraints continues. Over time, Ivie said, “we get all this damning evidence. It shifts perspectives.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

As that campaign has unfolded, administration officials have granted tech companies an unusual opportunity to nudge the nation’s health department toward a loosely regulated future for AI health apps in which the government reimburses them for services as it does medical professionals.

In February, federal health officials invited those businesses — including tech giants Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Apple, and Google — to a listening session on conversational AI products for patients, such as chatbots. Representatives from at least 35 industry organizations attended the meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating health apps as medical devices. Companies were prompted in advance to explain their AI products and how they access patients’ sensitive medical information.

But the meeting did not appear on the FDA’s public calendar or regulatory notices, nor was the public invited. Rather, the invitation for a select group to help shape federal policy governing AI in healthcare was extended in a chat room on the messaging service Slack.

“This is a great opportunity to support HHS’ goals and share your state-of-the-art understanding of safe Conversational AI development and monitoring to help FDA shape future guidance,” CMS senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor wrote in the Slack workspace.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not formally announced the chat room through federal regulatory channels, though CMS officials have talked about it at industry conferences. Legal experts said the chat room resembles a federal advisory panel, which would be required to operate in public view.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ reviewed thousands of Slack messages, meeting transcripts, and video recordings that reveal how the Trump administration has granted the industry a direct line to top government officials — including former head of the Department of Government Efficiency .

The conversation took place behind the scenes as federal health officials publicly worked to integrate AI and other technology into nearly every aspect of healthcare, a plan they’ve branded the “.”

“We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz at the public launch of an initiative that allows health apps to bill Medicare for AI services such as wearable device tracking. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of AI in healthcare, claiming it is “much better informed than any doctor in the country.”

Meanwhile, HHS staff even promised that a recently launched would serve as a lucrative pipeline for those businesses to get new users. The library’s webpage currently promotes only two dozen commercial apps to millions of American seniors and those with disabilities.

, Americans will get easier access to their medical records so apps can swiftly provide health or wellness advice. In practice, however, so will the tech companies.

Doctors, meanwhile, are increasingly worried about how patients use and share their medical records with the nascent technology.

“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” said John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association. “We don’t have enough data about them. We don’t understand how they work, how they’re using the information. There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”

CMS officials declined to answer several questions about the Slack workspace, including about its legality.

“CMS is focused on giving Medicare beneficiaries greater access to their health information and useful digital tools while promoting an open, interoperable healthcare system,” Gleason, now chief product officer for the newly created Office of Health Technology and Products at CMS, wrote in an emailed statement. “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration. CMS will continue working with patients, providers, payers, technology organizations, and other stakeholders to make health information more accessible and useful to the Americans it serves.”

The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The Conversation Begins

The behind-the-scenes effort to funnel more Americans to AI-powered health apps began in August 2025 in the Slack workspace.

“Welcome all!” Gleason wrote. “Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and see the Channel list as well to help you find channels that are relevant to you.”

Gleason is best known as the acting administrator of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, as it to millions of Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data, including at the Social Security Administration.

As her work with DOGE wound down last year, Gleason welcomed a variety of tech leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to the chat room.

The Slack workspace’s participants include representatives from major digital wellness companies like Oura Health, AI companies like Palantir, and investment outfits like 8VC, associated with Kennedy’s . While the Slack’s member count has ballooned to 1,700 over the past year, only a handful of patient advocates, doctors, and hospital representatives are in it.

The code of conduct Gleason shared on Slack in August 2025 documented that CMS had quietly established a technology working group.

The document also set ground rules for the Slack workspace, noting that the group does not constitute an “advisory committee,” nor would it be used “to obtain advice or recommendations for HHS, CMS, or any HHS/CMS officials.” The code also advises that federal employees “are prohibited from endorsing any product, service, or enterprise.”

Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer who is now a research specialist at Harvard Medical School, reviewed messages from the Slack workspace at the request of ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. He said the chat room in some ways resembles a federal advisory committee — an independent panel that can be formally stood up by an agency head, Congress, or the president to ensure agencies act in the best interest of the public rather than industry.

The law on advisory committees “was passed in part out of a concern about interest group capture, about anticompetitive capture of agency policymaking, about corruption,” he said.

Daval said the chat group looks like a committee, with members interacting with one another and building consensus on preferred courses of action.

If it were a formal advisory committee, though, Daval said, it would be subject to certain “membership requirements having to do with independence and fair balance.”

A ‘Sales Engine’

Over a series of video calls, CMS officials promised tech leaders participating in the Slack workspace that the agency would promote their health apps.

Jacob Shiff, the chief AI and technology officer at CMS’ Innovation Center, told industry representatives in a Zoom meeting in February that he hoped the agency’s work would be a “sales engine” for the health apps.

“We’re going to have a directory of all the organizations,” Shiff said in a video recording reviewed by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “The people on this call who hopefully will have amazing solutions that work will be the winners, and you have every incentive to obviously drive down your costs so you can be extremely profitable and scale. So hopefully we’re selling — or enabling you guys to thrive.”

A recording of the call had been publicly available through a Google Drive link but was made private the day after ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ asked about comments made during the meeting.

CMS did not respond to queries about how the agency has decided which AI-powered health apps appear in the Medicare App Library or why federal employees have promised to promote the products.

Days before publicly launching the Medicare App Library, CMS officials promised AI tech leaders during an informal meeting that the new webpage would become an important distribution channel for health apps because Medicare enrollees would place trust in products listed on the CMS website.

“If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CMS’ Taylor said during the April 7 meeting, channeling enrollees, according to a transcript of the call.

The Medicare App Library’s webpage encourages older and disabled Americans to manage health conditions such as obesity, cancer, or diabetes using two dozen AI-driven apps developed by some of the world’s largest corporations, including Microsoft and Google. Many of the apps promise in their product descriptions to give insight, perform analyses, or develop plans that will help patients lose weight or manage diabetes.

CMS officials have suggested to tech representatives during at least two meetings this year that those apps will be prioritized for a new agency program that reimburses companies for AI chatbot advice or wearable device tracking, according to video recordings.

CMS has not publicly divulged all the criteria it uses to decide which apps are listed in its library, but the webpage promotes apps still in their infancy.

Among them is Slothwise, a health app launched this year from a San Francisco apartment by a young, biotech entrepreneur and triple citizen of Russia, Israel, and the U.S. says it “knows your whole health” by analyzing medical records and tracking health data, offering users a free option with limited functionality or its full features for $9.99 a month. It has been reviewed on the Apple and Google app stores only a handful of times.

“I trusted slothwise with my health info because it was endorsed by medicare,” one reviewer wrote in a in August. “Connecting info was smooth and I learned a lot about my health.”

In a statement, Slothwise CEO Sofia Sigal-Passeck did not answer questions about the size and medical expertise of her current team, nor about the availability of a doctor to consult with patients who use the app. The app, she said, is only “informational” at this time.

“I’ve spent years building at the intersection of AI and complex biological data,” Sigal-Passeck wrote in an email. “A small team is not the same thing as an inexperienced team. Slothwise is built by physicians, PhD researchers and engineers.”

‘No Regulation, No Rulemaking’

What’s often less clear — and buried deep in lengthy privacy policies — is that these apps are tapping into the intimate details of patients’ medical records to fuel their AI-driven analyses.

Tech vendors have to treat these apps, once they are vetted and authorized by a third-party organization, like a patient requesting records. That position gives apps sweeping access to pull sensitive health data from the national network through which providers electronically exchange medical records, called the , or TEFCA.

A small but influential group of those tech company executives directly made the case to federal health officials during a in May, arguing that when health apps request medical records they should be treated as if they are standing “in the shoes” of a patient.

On Slack, tech vendors have lobbied for a “frictionless pathway” for verified users, after they’ve consented once, that allows the app to gain limitless access to patients’ medical records from the TEFCA network.

Ryan Howells, a healthcare management consultant who lobbies for a Washington, D.C.-based digital health tech organization called the CARIN Alliance, has spearheaded an effort for patients — vis-à-vis apps — to more easily access medical records. He has regularly noted in Slack that health apps accessing TEFCA must be vetted by a third-party organization — one of which he sits on the board of — and agree to a code of conduct, developed by the alliance he lobbies for.

“What more can you do to have trust in these apps?” he wrote in a March Slack message, responding to concerns about how much patient consent is needed for apps to access medical records on the network.

Kristen Valdes, the CEO of b.well, a company that also connects apps to the TEFCA network, made a similar argument.

“My opinion is that we need to stop protecting patients from themselves,” she wrote in the same message thread. “Full stop.”

Howells did not respond to an emailed list of questions from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. In an interview, Valdes told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ that her comment reflected her frustration at the “paternalism” of the healthcare system, which she said has historically made it difficult for patients to access their records. Although, she said, “there are going to be good and bad apps.”

Other tech leaders worried in Slack about the approach.

One startup founder cautioned the group to think about the pitfalls of giving health apps broad leeway to pull medical records.

“We might all be good, honest actors here but security & privacy systems have to be designed around the presence of malicious actors – especially if we want this system to scale up to thousands of apps,” wrote Jason Kulatunga, who runs Fasten Health, a medical records management platform.

Gleason, the CMS official, has publicly championed the vision shared by Howells and Valdes. In her speeches, she frequently urges doctors to accept patient medical records directly from apps and calls on them to “,” also the title of a 2025 co-authored by Howells that urges doctors’ offices to abandon paper records.

Last month, Gleason spoke to a crowd gathered at a swanky hotel in Washington for an event hosted by the MAHA Institute, a think tank that supports Secretary Kennedy’s agenda. She laid out her work with tech companies over the past year as she discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to make medical records more digitally accessible.

As she told it, more Americans can now download an app and access their medical records.

“Once you’ve verified your identity you can just click a simple button and say, I’d like my medical records into whatever app I choose,” Gleason said.

She continued: “That was all done just — no regulation, no rulemaking — just by challenging industry to work together.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ chief rural correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble discussed the findings of a KFF-Associated Press poll about rural support for the Make America Healthy Again movement on NPR’s Morning Edition on Sept. 30.

• .
• Read Tribble’s “Rural MAHA Followers Say Trump Health Policies Haven’t Reached Their Communities,” co-reported with Ali Swenson and Linley Sanders of the AP.

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed a new GLP-1 weight loss drug on CBS News’ CBS Mornings and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comments at a MAHA summit this week on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings, both on Sept. 30.

Gounder also discussed how Anthropic’s Claude agents might help develop new gene-editing technology on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Sept. 24.

• .
• .
• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed the Rural Health Transformation Program on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Sept. 25.

• .

• Read ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ ongoing coverage: Rural Health Payout.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the findings of a recent cancer report on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings on Sept. 16. Gounder also discussed the potential of artificial intelligence to be used in developing biological weapons on CBS News’ CBS Mornings on Sept. 11.

• .
• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Georgia correspondent Briah Lumpkins discussed a conservative Georgia congressional district that has remained supportive of President Donald Trump despite rising healthcare costs on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Sept. 11.

• .
• Read Lumpkins’ “Rising Healthcare Costs Have Hit Georgia’s Most Conservative District. But Its Politics Are Unlikely To Change.”  

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Florida correspondent Daniel Chang discussed in Spanish how gun violence affects children in Florida on Radio Bilingüe’s Línea Abierta on Sept. 10.

• , starting at 47:50.
• Read Chang’s reporting in “Where Florida’s Gun Violence Exacts Its Biggest Toll on Black and Latino Children.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

But U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in a , also agreed with the administration that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.

“It was definitely disappointing,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that filed suit last year after not receiving a award meant to bolster digital and internet skills nationwide. “With this administration it’s really worrisome.”

Congress passed the $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act in 2021 as the skill development component of a multilayered “” initiative under President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure law, which included a bigger pot of money for expanding internet infrastructure.

A few months into his second term, Trump directly attacked the Digital Equity Act on social media, pledging “” and calling the program “illegal.” The language echoed two Trump executive orders characterizing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs .

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees implementation of the law, responded by Digital Equity Act grant programs, leaving states and organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance in limbo.

In response to Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate the NDIA-related competitive grant program without racial classification. The government aims to release a new grant application in December, according to a filed in the case.

The NDIA now must reapply for the grant award, which was slated to be disbursed among more than a dozen organizations and tribes, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, El Centro Hispano in Arkansas, Portland Community College in Oregon, and Community Service Programs of West Alabama. The grants are meant to go toward digital navigator programs, in which community workers teach technology and internet skills, according to the NDIA.

In western Ohio, Jamie Huber said her organization was a subrecipient of the NDIA grant funds. Huber, director of community services at the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission, said that without the funding, she is left searching for money to continue navigator programs such as one she runs for people who are unemployed, homeless, or both.

“How do you find a home? Well, you got to look online. And how do you find a job? You have to look online,” Huber said.

Huber’s digital navigators also teach internet skills at 10 senior centers in rural counties stretching along the corner of Ohio bordering Michigan and Indiana. They help active older adults learn how to go online to pay bills and get healthcare, so they “continue having agency over their own life,” Huber said.

Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare, an analysis by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ found.

At Computer Reach in western Pennsylvania, Executive Director Dave Sevick said his organization has cut staff and programs. He said the nonprofit, which started in 2001, has refurbished more than 24,000 computers, giving them away to families it finds through schools and churches.

“We’re aware that affordability is the biggest issue around, and this doesn’t make it any better for folks,” Sevick said. “We’re helping a little bit by getting a free computer out to people.”

The Digital Equity Act the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

According to by the Pew Research Center, people in rural communities were less likely to have internet subscriptions compared with their urban and suburban counterparts.

The Pew Research polling that home broadband use among Black and Hispanic adults lagged that of white and Asian adults. While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.

In court, lead federal attorney Patrick Butler argued that Congress failed to prove a compelling government interest when including the racial or ethnic criteria. Congress did not “identify anything close to” a specific instance of discrimination in the broadband industry, Butler said, .

Butler then surprised the court, if the racial or ethnic status could be severed from the law, “we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In his opinion severing the race factor, Bates that “the President lacks the power to cancel laws passed by Congress based on his bald disagreement with Congress’s policy determinations.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a primary , said she will be “watching very carefully to ensure this administration does what Congress intended.”

“It is indisputable that these challenges are particularly pronounced in low income, rural, and Tribal communities — and there’s a reason Democrats and Republicans across the country support this program so strongly,” Murray said in a statement to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Biden’s infrastructure bill in 2021 and to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in late 2024 asking the agency to pause the $1.25 billion competitive grants program, arguing the use of racial classifications “does not serve a compelling governmental interest.” Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Arielle Roth, administrator of the agency, previously worked as the telecommunications policy director for the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s majority staff under Cruz. She was to lead the agency.

In June, during a House committee hearing, Roth had tense exchanges with Democrats who took issue with changes to the Biden-era infrastructure law’s internet deployment program, which now allows more satellite services rather than prioritizing fiber-optic cable lines.

Lawmakers also asked about the Digital Equity Act’s grant programs.

“Communities across the country deserve a clear answer and a path forward,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. While the National Digital Inclusion Alliance’s lawsuit does not include the state grants, Barragán asked how those grants would be rolled out, considering the federal judge’s decision on race.

California was awarded a $70 million state capacity grant. Early this year, the Justice Department to Congress asserting that the state grant and the competitive grant program both are illegally based on race, citing the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education admissions. Roth declined to answer Barragán’s question, noting there is active litigation.

Barragán said she was “extremely” frustrated by “some of the responses or nonresponses.”

Stephen Yusko, a spokesperson with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, declined to comment or respond to questions for this article.

The government and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance agreed to pause court proceedings to give the agency time to reinstate the competitive grant program. The NDIA has also proposed that the agency provide status reports every 30 days during the court pause “to ensure prompt attention to reinstatement,” according to the most recent .

“We need to make sure it’s all moving forward,” Siefer said.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ first reported that the Consumer Product Safety Commission — a federal agency tasked with monitoring injuries from household items — was pressuring hospitals to provide a private company with personally identifiable health information for analysis. The rollout of the program has inspired broad pushback from hospitals and privacy advocates.

The CPSC’s goal is to obtain millions of Americans’ medical records from emergency rooms for most injuries, even when a consumer product is not involved, internal emails and documents reviewed by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ revealed. The agency instructed hospitals to share detailed patient information for more than 10,000 types of injuries or conditions, such as vaccine reactions, suicide attempts, or stingray stabs.

The scope of data CPSC is collecting far exceeds the agency’s mission and should be immediately suspended, Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, who sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and other House and Senate Democrats to CPSC acting Chairman Peter Feldman.

“This unprecedented and sweeping effort to collect identifiable patient data is untethered from the Commission’s statutory mission and authority, and is ripe for misuse by an administration that has repeatedly sought access to Americans’ most personal information,” the letter stated. “Americans should be able to seek medical care without fear that their personal health information will be swept into a federal database and repurposed for political ends.”

Among other Democrats signing the letter were Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.

CPSC spokesperson Steve Roney did not answer several questions about the program and the call for it to be suspended.

“We received the letter, and will respond directly, through the appropriate channels,” he said in a statement.

The CPSC is one of several agencies that have launched broad acquisitions of Americans’ sensitive medical records during Trump’s second term. The Office of Personnel Management has requested federal workers’ sensitive health information. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. deputized at least one private organization to collect more medical records for his studies on vaccines and autism.

The CPSC has operated a voluntary program for decades that enables trained hospital workers based in about 70 hospitals nationwide to report injuries involving consumer products, called the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, or NEISS. Compared with the current initiative, the agency’s data collection has historically been far narrower, and previously requested patients’ identifiable information, generally for follow-up, in fewer than 1% of cases.

Without public notice, CPSC staffers overhauled the program early this year — rebranding it as NEISS-R — and told hospital executives that participation is mandatory, requiring they report far more identifiable patient details from more injuries to a private company called Konza Health. The Kansas-based company won a five-year contract last year worth up to $15.9 million with the CPSC.

In emails and contract language reviewed by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, Konza representatives described hospital participation as “mandatory” or “required.” Emails sent this year by CPSC chief data officer Elizabeth Puchek said hospitals would need to apply for an exemption from participation or face penalties. Those penalties, for what’s called unlawful “information blocking,” were established in a federal data-sharing regulation designed to make sure patients could access their medical records. The agency’s website reiterated that threat, claiming information-blocking regulations require hospitals “to make electronic health information (EHI) available to public health authorities, such as CPSC, upon request, unless a specific exception applies.”

The power play inspired widespread resistance. The American Hospital Association asking for modifications to the program, citing “confusion and concern about the scope of patient information” demanded by the agency.

Now the agency is backtracking, removing in recent weeks mentions of “information blocking” penalties from its public page.

The CPSC’s Feldman, a Trump appointee, said in an interview last month with Nextgov/FCW that the new program would .

The Democrats highlighted these discrepancies and changes, also noting that the agency has bypassed regulations and failed to publicly lay out any detailed plan for its data collection, as required by law.

“The Commission has since quietly removed the information blocking rationale from its public NEISS webpage, without any public correction or acknowledgment that the claim it spent months promoting was without basis,” the letter said. “This reversal does not undo the coercion hospitals experienced, but rather raises the question of whether the Commission’s purported legal justifications were ever more than post-hoc cover for an agenda that had little to do with its statutory authority.” The Democrats’ letter asks CPSC to respond by Sept. 18.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed fatal measles cases on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings on Aug. 26. Gounder fact-checked Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz’s comments about vaccines and drug prices on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Aug. 24. She also discussed food recalls this summer on CBS News 24/7’s The Takeout With Major Garrett on Aug. 24.

• .
• .
• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed kindergarten vaccination rates on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show on Aug. 25.

• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ contributor Mark Kreidler discussed the use of artificial intelligence for Medicaid reenrollment on KVPR’s Central Valley Daily on Aug. 24.

• .
• Read Kreidler’s “AI Is Being Used To Boost Medicaid Enrollment, but Not Without Concerns.”

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Julie Appleby discussed the state of the Affordable Care Act on Vox’s Today, Explained podcast on Aug. 24.

• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Georgia correspondent Briah Lumpkins discussed the importance of healthcare policy in upcoming elections on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Aug. 21.

• .

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed Americans’ skepticism toward public health experts and President Donald Trump’s executive order on childhood vaccines on CBS News 24/7 and CBS News’ CBS Mornings, respectively, on Aug. 11.

On Aug. 10, Gounder discussed the risks and benefits of egg freezing on CBS Mornings.

Gounder also discussed organ donation and scientists’ creation of new viruses with AI on CBS Mornings and CBS News 24/7, respectively, on Aug 7.

• .
• .
• .
• .

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Work Requirements Unfairly Burden Medicaid Applicants

Great story (“A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On,” July 21). However, a key point was missed. The wrongly denied recipients have the burden of proving their entitlement. This can cost thousands. They have no money with which to finance the carrying of that burden of proof. Additionally, how does one prove that they cannot do any work? Doctors generally say: I will just provide their work restrictions (e.g., 10-pound lifting restrictions), but I’m not a vocational expert, so I’m not going to opine on “employability” or “non-employability.” Moreover, it takes many months to go through reconsiderations and appeals, so even if the worker wins, they will have lost everything by then. Finally, under the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies,” the recipient must suffer through the administrative steps before asking a court to help. And even then, the court will defer to the administrative agencies’ findings of fact (i.e., the department’s hired doctor over the treating doctor).

Bottom line: Once there is an incorrect/wrongful denial, it is an unjust horror show that literally destroys lives — all because far-right politicians have stereotyped Medicaid recipients, painting them all as presumptively people who could work but would rather just unjustly receive benefits — a totally false and ignorant paradigm. A partial solution would include placing the burden of proof on the state to prove the recipient can work and that suitable work is available, and to enact a presumption that when a treating doctor has credibly explained a substantial disability, the department must presume qualification absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary.

— N. Dean Nasser Jr.; Sioux Falls, South Dakota

A Reckless Data Grab?

The Office of Personnel Management has already suffered massive data breaches affecting millions of employees and their families.

I am a retired federal civil servant and one of the many whose data was .

The (“Trump’s Personnel Agency Says It Will Remove Some Identifying Info as It Sweeps Up Medical Records,” July 22) raise the question of how the requested massive dump of health data any better than the personnel records previously affected.

— Kathryn Edgecomb; Vancouver, Washington

States Need More Than Money To Fight the Opioid Crisis

New Mexico offers a compelling case study in the national conversation about opioid settlement accountability (“Leadership Vacuum: Agencies in New York and Beyond Pass the Buck on Opioid Cash Oversight,” July 21). While much of the public attention has focused on whether settlement dollars are being misspent, the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor’s review of local governments found a different problem: Large amounts of opioid remediation funding remain unspent years after settlements were reached and funds were distributed. The state auditor’s transparency review identified more than $100 million in opioid settlement funds held by local governments, with many entities reporting little or no expenditures as of fiscal year 2025.

That outcome does not point to widespread misuse. Instead, some local officials repeatedly cited workforce shortages, provider capacity constraints, procurement hurdles, and long-term sustainability concerns as barriers to moving dollars into prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.

While these barriers are significant, New Mexico has built structures that may be worth watching. A state law established dedicated opioid settlement funds and a framework intended to ensure resources are used for opioid remediation purposes. State agencies, local governments, behavioral health providers, and policymakers are now working through how best to coordinate spending, measure outcomes, and communicate progress to the public. The New Mexico Office of the State Auditor will continue to provide transparency, reporting on who is spending, what is producing results, and where bottlenecks exist.

The lesson for other states is clear: Securing settlement dollars creates an unprecedented opportunity to remediate harms resulting from the opioid crisis, but it is only the first step. States also need the workforce, infrastructure, and coordination to turn that money into treatment, recovery services, prevention programs, and fewer overdose deaths.

The core question is no longer just where the money is. It is whether states have built the systems to translate settlement dollars into measurable public health gains.

— New Mexico State Auditor Joseph Maestas; Santa Fe, New Mexico

Progress on the Prior Authorization Front

Health plans continue to make steady progress implementing the to simplify prior authorization. The article “Insurers Hedge on Trump-Backed Pledge To Improve Denials Process” (July 17) paints an incomplete picture of this ongoing work, particularly related to supporting for patients and for prior authorization requests.

Participating health plans committed to implementing aimed at reducing administrative burden and accelerating access to care on a transparent timeline, and that work is on track. In April 2026, participating health plans announced and a for submitting electronic prior authorization requests for most medical services starting in 2027.

Health plans will continue adopting common data standards on a rolling basis as the standardization commitment is fully implemented, starting in 2027. As more providers move away from manual, error-prone processes and adopt electronic prior authorization, this standardized approach will mean faster answers, a more consistent experience, and less friction for everyone.

in place to support member transitions between insurers during an active course of treatment. Under the voluntary commitments, when a patient with an approved authorization for in-network care switches health plans, the previous plan’s authorization is honored for 90 days. Health plans can implement several data exchange options to support patient transitions, and plans are not required to use a specific method to meet the commitment.

The series of voluntary commitments made by the industry requires substantial work, meaningful investment, and strong partnerships. Health plans are making steady progress in meeting these commitments and will continue to do so until they are fulfilled.

— Mike Tuffin; AHIP president and CEO; Washington, D.C.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .